Blog

“You’re racist!” 4 Keys to responding to claims of prejudice

Being called racist, sexist, ageist, or homophobic is every manager’s nightmare. The two most common responses I see taken in these types of situations are either an over-reaction or a defensive one. An over-reaction may involve avoidance followed by furtive conversations with other managers or human resources to get advice and to feel out the legal consequences of the claim.  A defensive reaction may involve an immediate hostile conversation with the claimant where the manager denies the charge, even turning the tables on the claimant, inferring the claimant is a troublemaker or difficult employee. Although common, these two choices are not useful in repairing workplace relationships or working towards a respectful work environment.

What are the keys to defusing and solving these situations quickly?

Key One: Immediately, ask “I am curious, what did I do or say that leads you to believe that about me?” Although it takes courage and personal leadership skills to uncover the specific behaviour that triggered the claim, it is essential to define what behaviour the claimant is referring to.  Asking what you specifically said or did that the claimant interpreted as being racist or sexist is neither easy nor natural. Our first inclination is to attack back or to avoid the situation. However the quicker you respond to the comment in a problem solving way, the quicker it can be resolved.

Key 2 - It is important not to assume the intention behind the claim until you have explored further. There is always a motive in bringing a claim forward. Some possible motivations are: The claimant may be using the comment as a counterbalancing reflexive response to negative feedback from you as a manager regarding their own performance. The claimant may see that any negative comment directed their way is based in your prejudgment of their abilities based on the diverse group they belong to. The claimant may legitimately believe that your comment was racist or sexist and is trying to change the workplace relationship to be more respectful.

Key Three: It is possible that your truth of the situation is different than theirs. We interpret other people’s behaviour through the window of our own intention and interpretation. Therefore the math works like this: your behaviour + their interpretation of your behaviour based on their belief system = what they think is real in the situation at hand.

Key Four: Be aware that your behaviour might not reflect your true intention.  Were you unaware that your comments might be interpreted as offensive? Were you attempting to be funny? We are often clueless about the world we live in and those that inhabit it. Even if it was not your intention to be offensive, clarifying your intention alone is not sufficient to rebuild or move the relationship forward. Try “It wasn’t my intention to be offensive. I didn’t realize that my actions could be interpreted that way. But now that you have brought your interpretation of my behaviour to my attention I will be more respectful in the future.”

Although some situations cannot be resolved easily or quickly, a manager who employs the above 4 Keys can immediately begin the clarifying process. Once you are clear on what exactly you did or said that inspired the claim, you can then begin to unbundle your intention and the interpretation of the claimant. Once you are both clear on what you did and why, you can decide what further steps are necessary. Sometimes the clarity alone resolves the situation.

Author Note – you may be interestedto know  that this article was reviewed by Harvey Schachter in the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business section last Monday. Here is the link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/managing/morning-manager/climbing-the-pyramid-for-success/article1611454/

copyright Jeanne Martinson, MA, Diversity Strategist

When does Google not Google?

A strange thing is happening on line – when you go to www.google.com and type in “Buddhism is” a string of possible answers come up through the Google Suggest feature. As it does for “Christianity is” and “Judaism is”. BUT...when you type in “Islam is”, nothing happens. No suggests occur. 

Google Suggest is a feature that helps you search by attempting to complete your search phrase before you can type it in - popping up suggestions with each letter you type. It draws from what other people have searched for in the past, ranking by popularity and longevity.  Sometimes the results are useful, sometimes not.  Google claims it doesn’t meddle in its search engine activities, that what you see is what others are searching for. They claim this is just a glitch in the programming, but even days after this was illuminated, the Suggest still does not suggest.

What does this mean to us – if anything? Hiding instead of debating, folding behind censorship instead of free flow of information is not what today’s world needs. We need dialogue, discussion, expression, sharing and understanding. What are your thoughts? Please send me an email. I look forward to hearing from you...

Does Race affect the Race – Politics in Louisiana?

As of January 7, 2010, six candidates are in the running for the job of Mayor of the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. At a candidates’ debate yesterday, I was surprised to hear about the different perspectives of the candidates and the element of race in the campaign.

Although New Orleans demographics show a balance of race, in the banquet room at the Harrah’s Hotel, the 200 people in business suits such as myself were predominantly Caucasian baby boomers. The handful of African Americans were primarily the three Black candidates themselves and their support team members.

One candidate, African American Troy Henry, spoke in the debate and later to media how he believed the media has preordained a white mayor. He cited the heavy play of media attention on the campaign of Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu. Several candidates mentioned what they termed the ‘elephant in the room’, meaning race. Comments were made as to whether race played a part in who got work from city hall, who was hired, even corruption in City Hall under current Mayor Ray Nagin. Nagin is the latest Black mayor presiding over city hall – a run of several decades of African Americans in the top job.

NOLA (New Orleans, Louisiana) is a city in trouble, where they still budget on their 400,000 population even though it is only 75% of those numbers, where 38% of property taxes are in arrears and where 40% of water processed through the water treatment system bubbles up at street level through broken pipes and is a lost resource.

If it was the opposite and NOLA was a thriving city, would this Mayor’s race be different? More importantly, what can we as Canadians take away from NOLA’s challenges? Do we respond more friendly to race issues when our future prospects look rosy? When we have a city or province in a boom? Do we look for others to blame our troubles on when our business, province, or city is not doing so well?  

As we go forward in our own country, we will become more diverse in our leadership at civic and other government levels. Can we learn lessons from NOLA, positive or negative, to help us to ensure that race does not impede our ability to have the best and brightest, regardless of demography, as leaders?

Walking down Bourbon and Canal Streets in New Orleans this week, I was struck by the displays of the fleur-de-lis symbol. To me, the fleur-de-lis triggers thoughts of Quebec sovereignty and national separation. Surely that is not what it means down here. So, I went on the search to discover why this symbol is so prevalent and its meaning to New Orleans.

My research and reading revealed that New Orleans was founded in 1719 by the French and within five years became the French capital for all the lands that drained into the Mississippi River. In 1762, France ceded the city to Spain in the secret Treaty of Fountainbleu. These years were a significant time for Canada’s impact on Louisiana, as this was when the ancestors of the present day Cajuns began to arrive, driven from modern day Nova Scotia by the British. These Acadians were welcomed by the Spanish government and settled in southern Louisiana where they farmed, fished and developed their own distinctive culture. In 1803, ownership of Louisiana passed from Spain to France and then quickly from France to the United States. Although New Orleans has been influenced by the following 200 years of American ownership and retains distinctive Spanish architecture in its oldest areas, it is French at its roots. 

When Hurricane Katrina hit five years ago, 1600 people died. The neighborhoods of Gentilly and the lower 9th ward were devastated. Homes were flooded to rooftops once the levees holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain burst. In the 9th ward, a barge burst through a levee wall and within four minutes of hearing the bang, residents had ten feet of water in their homes.  The core city fell 25% in population, from 400 to 300. Only four of the previous fourteen hospitals of greater New Orleans are open. Many office buildings along Canal Street remain vacant.  Several hotels and restaurants have just recently re-opened.

In response to their tragedy, the people of New Orleans did a unique thing. They adopted the fleur-de-lis as their sign of reclamation, redemption, reconstruction and rebirth. Previously seen as a sign of New Orlean history and a sign of support for their NFL team the Saints, this one time symbol of French royalty now stands for something more powerful and is found on coffee cups, t-shirts, sidewalks, and even built into the architecture of repaired buildings.

This discovery has inspired questions in me:  What do symbols mean to us? How do they make us feel? Make us think? What do they trigger?

From now on, when I see a fleur-de-lis, I will no longer just think of Quebec. My scope of thought has been broadened.

In the workplace, symbols lay a part as well.  Do employees in our workplaces have symbols that we as managers have misinterpreted? Do persons of different cultures or religions in our workplaces use symbols that trigger in us a certain thought? Is there something we can learn by taking the time to talk with people of different cultures about their symbols? To ask about their personal “fleur-de-lis”?

Princess Tiana – A Black role model? Or a move backwards for women of colour?

December 2009 - Disney releases its new movie, “The Princess and the Frog” to major media notice. According to some, this is the first time a Black princess has been featured. (I acknowledge this as being probable versus absolute -  as there may be some obscure film out there that I have missed). 

Whether it is the first or not, there is much talk about what this movie means to and for Black women.  Women of all races grew up with the fantasy of the princess, where we played the role with our friends, and dressed up to match the part. However, as Black girls did not necessarily see themselves reflected in princess toys and movies, perhaps they did not see that a prince really could or would be part of their future.

Is this good or bad? Did the Black girls who did not expect men to take care of them grow up to be stronger women?  Maybe women of all races who grew up hearing about the value of education and self-sufficiency over dependence perhaps had an advantage?

When I wrote my first book, “Lies and Fairy Tales that Deny Women Happiness”, I explored the major beliefs that fairy tales instill in young women – to depend on a man to provide and to wait patiently for him to appear (Sleeping Beauty), to expect a fairy godmother to clean up our messes and facilitate our success (Cinderella), to distrust other women (Snow White), and to stay with a man regardless of his faults and disposition (Beauty and the Beast).

I don’t think that Disney or fairy tales in general have done a good service to women.  While I will celebrate the ethnic representation demonstrated in this new piece of art, I lift an eyebrow in scepticism at the possible reinforcement of the stereotypes and beliefs women have fought for years to eradicate.

Tiger Woods, Golf and Respect in the Workplace

In today’s edition of the Globe and Mail, Lysiane Gagnon made a case for the decency of Tiger Woods. She backed her claim with the fact that Woods was a golfer and not from an aggressive team or contact sport – a player of the gentlemen’s sport of courtesy.

Whether I agree or disagree with Gagnon’s claim that Woods should be exempt from public scrutiny, her points made me contemplate the similarities and differences between the game of golf and respect in the workplace.

What if we were to behave towards each other with Gagnon’s take on the rules of golf?

1. “Players routinely shake hands after a round and congratulate each other”. Imagine how different our workplaces would be if after times of competition and conflict, we immediately honoured others for their contribution and skill?

2. “They help each other look for their balls”. Do we often have private glee when a colleague goes off course and is stumbling around in the rough? Do we have information or contacts that could help others succeed which we hold back?

3. “They keep silent while others play and wait until the players ahead of them have left the green to play towards the flag”. Do we wait for others to finish before we move into play with our ideas and opinions? Do we hear people out completely or just wait for them to take a breath and charge in?

Are there any other lessons we can take from golf that can be applied to our workplace?

The study guide for new immigrants called “Discover Canada – The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship” was recently released.  There have been mixed reviews, primarily about the increase in information of Canada’s war history and its significance.  As I read through the document, I was struck not only by the additions of war victories but also by Canada’s acknowledgement and atonement of past domestic war actions.

The guide describes one such war action that many of us are familiar with.  “...the state of war and public opinion in BC led to the relocation of West Coast Japanese Canadians by the Canadian government, and the forcible sale of their property. The government apologized in 1988 for wartime wrongs inflicted on Japanese Canadians”. 

In fact, the Canadian government removed all Japanese Canadians living within 160 km of the BC coastline. In all, 20,881 people were sent to detention camps in the BC interior and to sugar beet farms in Alberta and Manitoba. After the war, the internees were encouraged to return to Japan - even though most of them had been born in Canada and some were third and fourth generation Canadians. This war action was carried out against advice from the RCMP who said this group was of no danger to Canada.

Another  lesser known war action that is practically a footnote in the guide had equal impact on new immigrants and their Canadian born children:  “Regrettably, from 1914 to 1920, Ottawa interned over 8,000 former Austro-Hungarian subjects , mainly Ukrainian men, as ‘enemy aliens’ in 24 labour camps across Canada, even though Britain advised against the policy”.

In fact, after the entry of Great Britain into WWI, the Government of Canada issued an order in council which provided for the registration, and in certain cases, for the internment of aliens of “enemy nationality”. Many of the 171,000 Ukrainian Canadians living in Canada found themselves described as enemy aliens. Since these immigrants or their parents had generally come to Canada from the Austrian crown lands of Galicia and Bukovyna, their citizenship, but not their nationality, could be described as Austrian or Austro-Hungarian. Those so categorized were subject to imprisonment in one of 26 receiving stations and internment camps established across Canada or at least to registration as enemy aliens.  Between 1914 and 1920, over 5,000 Canadians of Ukrainian descent were incarcerated, amongst them women and children.  More amazing for us to realize is that over 80,000 Ukrainians were categorized as enemy aliens and obliged to report regularly to their local police authorities or to the North West Mounted Police. They were issued identification papers that had to be carried at all times, the penalty for non-compliance being arrest and imprisonment.

Many Canadians are uncomfortable with our history regarding these two issues and would rather let history remain history, a mere footnote. It is easy to forget. After all, there was little visible sign of the Japanese camps for the average Canadian during WWII. Most of the Ukrainian camps were in the woods where many of our national parks were built with their incarcerated labour. So these groups were not visible in society or the mainstream workplace. 

But there is learning to be embraced from our past. How would average Canadians have behaved if instead of segregation and internment, Japanese and Ukrainian Canadians had been part of the mainstream workforce? How would have they been treated? Communicated with?

As our world becomes more global, and as new Canadians come from around the world, what do we need to consider if new Canadians and their families come from areas where Canada is in conflict or playing a peacemaking role?  How do we communicate with and regard people who look and sound like citizens from a country that Canada is in conflict with? Are we seeing these Canadians as individuals? Do we grant them the same opportunities as those who seem more like us?

Although two people may have similarities in race or ethnicity, it does not translate that they necessarily have the same perspectives, motives or beliefs. Yet it is part of our mind processing to create generalizations - it is one of the key ways we learn about objects in our world.  Yet when we transfer that mind skill to people, we can easily create stereotypes and bias. It is a natural outcome of a diverse world that we prejudge others based on the beliefs we hold about the groups that we think they belong to.

However, we have a choice. Go along with our unconscious thoughts about others, or challenge what we believe and why.

Copyright 2009 Jeanne Martinson

Last spring I ventured into a graduate degree in leadership through Royal Roads University in Victoria, British Columbia. I am now in the fascinating yet dreaded research half of the degree. My research question relates to the similarities and differences in behaviour between corporate leaders and criminal leaders.

In one of my last classes on campus this summer, one of the professors asked “Who here already knows the answer to their research question?” I realized that I was only one of a few members of my cohort that didn’t think they knew the outcome of the research they were embarking on. In fact, it seemed, many of them had a theory they wished to prove, a hypothesis to test, an opinion to ratify, a process to advocate.

In reflection, I remember shaking my head in surprise. One of the reasons I so like my research question is because I really have no idea as to what the findings will be. Certainly, anyone I speak to has an opinion to what I will find and they often begin by saying, “Well don’t you think…” and I am delighted to respond that no, I don’t know or agree. That is why it is such a fascinating research question for me.

The quantum theorist Bohm said for true learning, a researcher must suspend their assumptions – literally to hold them as if they were suspended before us - separate from us. Aren’t we all researchers to some degree, figuring out our work and life as we go along? To suspend our assumptions and be open to information that perhaps disagrees with our “theory” and existing beliefs indeed is a challenging task.  To research and observe before we analyze and determine is a leadership trait to be developed and honed.

Are you curious? Are you a searcher for all the relevant information around you before making a decision – or do you search for the supporting data that confirms that you are right?

In 2008, the Governor of California passed a series of tax increases on foreign shipping containers entering the Port of Long Beach. These taxes represented a 160% increase and their purpose was to offset the increasing wage costs to the longshoreman’s union members. The Governor thought the Port of Long Beach had a monopoly on freight coming into the west coast of North America and his decision would have no negative impacts on the rest of the system. However, as of this past quarter, foreign shippers have begun to dock their container ships south of Long Beach at the Port of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Even if the Governor rescinds the tax, the Port of Lazaro Cardenas has already expanded its handling capacity. A “good idea at the time” has created problems throughout the rest of the system.

McDuff, writing in the Investor’s Digest of Canada about the shipping fiasco, suggested that the unintended benefits or consequences generally failed to be taken into account in this situation. The “systems thinking” element of this decision must have been lost on the Governor. 

No leader making a decision is an island. We all influence and impact others. The tax decision made in California was no doubt heralded as a good one by many, but we have seen time and time again that although we think we are in silos, influencing no one but our own, our good intentions can trigger unforeseen negative consequences. Sometimes it is because we don’t talk to each other – confer with the elements of our system that are impacted by our decisions.We live in our own little silos of action and intention. Lencioni writes that “silos are nothing more than the barriers that exist between departments within an organization, causing people who are suppose to be on the same team to work against one another”. He further suggests that only dialoguing across departments, divisions and industries could save much unforeseen pain.

Have you ever made a “good decision at the time” only to see negative consequences or outcomes down the road? Who do you need to bring into your silo to confer with? Can you make your silo walls more transparent? Even invisible?

For more info on systems thinking, try out work by Senge (The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization) . Lencioni’s latest book on Silos (Silos, Politics and Turf Wars) is a good read as well.

Memory specialist and socio-linguist, Elizabeth Loftus stated that “Memories don’t just fade…they grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed – colored by succeeding events, other people’s recollections or suggestions… Truth and reality when seen through the filter of our memories are not objective facts, but subjective, interpretative realities.”

It seems ‘truth’ begins to deteriorate once an interaction ceases. Then it is only my remembrance of the situation and the other person’s remembrance of the situation that remains. If that situation was difficult, we may both avoid the conflict and each other - with the result being that our ‘truths’ become more diverse and polarized, with each of us seeing ourselves as both more victimized and more righteous in our own truth. Our unwillingness to search for our common truth, through addressing the conflict and having the difficult but necessary conversation, pushes us towards further irresolvable positions.

I have had the experience where I revisited a negative situation years later with the other person involved. In most, maybe even all of these cases, my recollection was coloured by the unfair blame that I placed on the other person and what I interpreted was their intention in the interaction. It was painful, but worth the challenge to own my contribution to the discord and work towards resolution.

What situations do you have from your past that might have been affected by how you remember? Any situations you need to own, and resolve?

Check out Stone, Patton & Heen’s book “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most”  for a good process to moving forward in this area.